Climate change vulnerability for species-Assessing the assessments

© 2017 The Authors. Global Change Biology Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Global change biology. - 1999. - 23(2017), 9 vom: 28. Sept., Seite 3704-3715
1. Verfasser: Wheatley, Christopher J (VerfasserIn)
Weitere Verfasser: Beale, Colin M, Bradbury, Richard B, Pearce-Higgins, James W, Critchlow, Rob, Thomas, Chris D
Format: Online-Aufsatz
Sprache:English
Veröffentlicht: 2017
Zugriff auf das übergeordnete Werk:Global change biology
Schlagworte:Journal Article biodiversity climate change conservation prioritization policy risk assessment species conservation vulnerability assessment
LEADER 01000naa a22002652 4500
001 NLM273380982
003 DE-627
005 20231225001111.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 231225s2017 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
024 7 |a 10.1111/gcb.13759  |2 doi 
028 5 2 |a pubmed24n0911.xml 
035 |a (DE-627)NLM273380982 
035 |a (NLM)28660715 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rakwb 
041 |a eng 
100 1 |a Wheatley, Christopher J  |e verfasserin  |4 aut 
245 1 0 |a Climate change vulnerability for species-Assessing the assessments 
264 1 |c 2017 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a ƒaComputermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a ƒa Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
500 |a Date Completed 20.10.2017 
500 |a Date Revised 02.12.2018 
500 |a published: Print-Electronic 
500 |a Citation Status MEDLINE 
520 |a © 2017 The Authors. Global Change Biology Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 
520 |a Climate change vulnerability assessments are commonly used to identify species at risk from global climate change, but the wide range of methodologies available makes it difficult for end users, such as conservation practitioners or policymakers, to decide which method to use as a basis for decision-making. In this study, we evaluate whether different assessments consistently assign species to the same risk categories and whether any of the existing methodologies perform well at identifying climate-threatened species. We compare the outputs of 12 climate change vulnerability assessment methodologies, using both real and simulated species, and validate the methods using historic data for British birds and butterflies (i.e. using historical data to assign risks and more recent data for validation). Our results show that the different vulnerability assessment methods are not consistent with one another; different risk categories are assigned for both the real and simulated sets of species. Validation of the different vulnerability assessments suggests that methods incorporating historic trend data into the assessment perform best at predicting distribution trends in subsequent time periods. This study demonstrates that climate change vulnerability assessments should not be used interchangeably due to the poor overall agreement between methods when considering the same species. The results of our validation provide more support for the use of trend-based rather than purely trait-based approaches, although further validation will be required as data become available 
650 4 |a Journal Article 
650 4 |a biodiversity 
650 4 |a climate change 
650 4 |a conservation prioritization 
650 4 |a policy 
650 4 |a risk assessment 
650 4 |a species conservation 
650 4 |a vulnerability assessment 
700 1 |a Beale, Colin M  |e verfasserin  |4 aut 
700 1 |a Bradbury, Richard B  |e verfasserin  |4 aut 
700 1 |a Pearce-Higgins, James W  |e verfasserin  |4 aut 
700 1 |a Critchlow, Rob  |e verfasserin  |4 aut 
700 1 |a Thomas, Chris D  |e verfasserin  |4 aut 
773 0 8 |i Enthalten in  |t Global change biology  |d 1999  |g 23(2017), 9 vom: 28. Sept., Seite 3704-3715  |w (DE-627)NLM098239996  |x 1365-2486  |7 nnns 
773 1 8 |g volume:23  |g year:2017  |g number:9  |g day:28  |g month:09  |g pages:3704-3715 
856 4 0 |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13759  |3 Volltext 
912 |a GBV_USEFLAG_A 
912 |a SYSFLAG_A 
912 |a GBV_NLM 
912 |a GBV_ILN_350 
951 |a AR 
952 |d 23  |j 2017  |e 9  |b 28  |c 09  |h 3704-3715